Paul Janensch: 'Fiscal cliff' reality doesn't match hype

Published 5:20 pm, Thursday, December 13, 2012

The news media call it a "fiscal cliff." They babble on about "sequestration." They quote both sides as saying we are being "held hostage."

I'm here to tell you it's not a fiscal cliff. How sequestration applies is murky. And I don't feel I am being held hostage. (Who would pay the ransom?)

The term "fiscal cliff" was injected into the debate over the federal budget by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he testified before Congress last February. He should have known better.

The news media love the fiscal cliff. It's so scary!

It's true that at the beginning of 2013, hundreds of billions in tax increases and hundreds of billions in spending cuts will start to take effect unless congressional Republicans and the White House come to agreement about the federal budget.

More Information

What do you think?
Respond to this opinion piece in a Letter to the Editor, 300 words maximum, to letters@newstimes.com; or Where I Stand, 700 words maximum, to jsmith@newstimes.com; or shoot a quick You Said It, maximum 50 words, to YouSaidIt@newstimes.com. Be sure to provide your full name, town and a telephone number to contact you. The number will not be published.

That's serious, but the key phrase is "will start to take effect." It would not happen all at once.

Going over the fiscal cliff would not plunge us into a recession before we have returned our Christmas presents.

"Fiscal slope" or "fiscal steps" would be more appropriate.

Another term the news media force feed us is "sequestration." What the heck is that?

Sequestration is Beltway-speak for mandatory and extensive cuts in spending, including defense spending, unless there is a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff.

In the legal world, "sequester" means to hide or isolate -- as when a judge orders jurors in a sensational murder trial to be sequestered overnight in a motel so they are not influenced by the opinions of others.

It's unclear what sequestration has to do with the fiscal cliff.

Those in charge of negotiations are not very sequestered. In fact, they spend a lot of time unsequestered -- speaking to political rallies, in the case of President Obama, and speaking into microphones at the capitol, in the case of House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

As for the term "hostage," the White House accuses the congressional Republicans of holding the middle class hostage to tax cuts for the rich.

The congressional Republicans accuse the White House of holding everyone hostage to entitlements.

Does the Stockholm syndrome figure in here? That's when hostages fall in love with their captors. I doubt it. I, for one, have not fallen in love with the hostage-takers on either side.

Back to the ever-popular "fiscal cliff." The term appeals to the news media because, unlike fiscal slope or fiscal steps, it conjures up the frightening image of a bus full of passengers (namely, us) plummeting hundreds of feet to the rocks below.

It's like those weather forecasts on television. We are never just told a storm is coming. Who would pay attention to that?

No, we are told the storm will be devastating! A record-setter! Lots of flooding! Get your emergency kit ready!

A few, less excitable commentators on the Internet predict that if no deal is reached by Jan. 1, and if those tax hikes and spending cuts do begin to kick in, the new Congress will do this:

Restore spending to the most popular programs, let the rich pay higher taxes and eliminate the tax hike for the rest of us. That way every member of Congress who supports the package can claim to have voted for lower taxes.

Hey, maybe the best term for this is not fiscal slope or fiscal steps, but fiscal bluff.